Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.Our technology = magic by medieval standards. If you were to ask a medieval serf if we'll ever invent a flying machine, he'll laugh at you.
that's a good point...but star wars defies the laws of physics. and "ye canny change the laws o' physics cap'in"...
So, Red, your claim is:
Flying cars are beyond comprehension and cannot at all be built.
...
Please prove the above statement more than "oh well it requires too much energy!!!" well people back then would say that getting a rocket to lift off Earth would require too much energy.
Also, how does the defying laws of physics part have anything to do with my argument?
Blasters don't defy the laws of physics.
Nor do flying cars (again, I never said that they'd be used, just that we CAN make them, ie it is possible)
Nor does AI
Lightsabers might, but that's really the only one.
lightsabers don't really deny phsyics. They just require an as of yet undiscovered property of light. There would have to be a way to solidify and focus the laser, or perhaps a force-field (not unheard of) workin in CONJUNCTION with a laser.
Its not possible now, and we don't have any idea HOW to make those things happen, but it doesn't mean its impossible. Just means its unknown as of now.
Kinda like time travel defied the KNOWN laws of physics 20 years ago, but now with wormholes, scientists are taking a serious look at the possibilites.
Known laws of physics are subject to change as we develop better technology to examine the earth, elements, universe etc.
No.
From the wookiee:
Lasers were generated by introducing energy to a medium, the substance used to generate the beams. Tibanna gas was a frequently favored medium. When an atom of the medium was excited by energy, one or more of its electrons would "jump" to a higher energy level. When the atom stabilized (the point at which the electrons return to their original energy levels), a photon was released. A photon was a "packet" of energy that traveled in both a wave-like and a particulate manner, giving it a high energy level, as well as a high damage rating. Some types of sniper rifles fired invisible bolts of energy by using a special type of blaster gas.
A high energy level in relation to what? This passage describes light emission. This is how florescent bulbs work. Besides the (rather important) question of how the light was made coherent, nothing here explains how such beams could reach deadly levels of energy.
All light behaves as both a wave and a particle. Ascribing a "high damage rating" (which is also gibberish, btw) to this fact would also give the halogen bulbs at school a "high damage rating."
Droids were weak against ion energy
In these blasters, the combination of superhot laser-light and a compressed bolt of intense energy particles formed the deadly bolt.
"Intense energy particles" is insufficiently exact. Gas "processed into a compressed beam of intense energy particles" would simply be plasma. The article differentiates between plasma based blasters and the "more deadly" variety.
These energy particles are, to the best of my knowledge, imaginary. This leaves us to discuss only the laser weapons that are considered "inferior."
Lasers today can be incredibly powerful:
http://www.unl.edu/diocles/diocles.shtml
(I went in here and it was weigh kewl.)
The facility took an entire room. A large room. If we pretend for a moment that there are no major barriers to linear miniaturization (I don't know for a fact either way) then it may become possible for lasers to apply these massive amounts of power in combat. There is still the problem of energy (power consumption for this machine is gargantuan) as well as tactical use; a laser hit would be a local, self cauterizing wound. The weapon would simply be too precise.
Moreover, as the energy achieved is due to "stretched, amplifies pulses" being "compressed back into short, powerful pulses" it is entirely possible that this method of amplification is not conducive to miniaturization. (The design itself may prevent combat application.)
So, to recap:
1. Laser weaponry as described by Star Wars is gibberish.
2. Plasma weapons ("blasters"😉 are pseudoscience and therefore gibberish.
3. We have powerful lasers today, but they require massive quantities of power. This level of power is not available on a battlefield.
4. Realistic laser weaponry would not be tactically or militarily useful.
5. The current method of light amplification may in fact make militarization impossible. (Diocles is in a cleanroom- "up to the 10,000 level."
Flying cars are not currently possible, nor shall they be.
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Flight/intermediate/forces-01.html
The principles of aviation disbar any automobile from liftoff, and unless you'd like to redefine "flying car" to include personal aircraft (a poor decision, especially considering the limited weight parameters of ultralight aircraft, the closest parallel in size currently imaginable).
people back then would say that getting a rocket to lift off Earth would require too much energy.
In 1903, high school mathematics teacher Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857–1935) published Исследование мировых пространств реактивными приборами[21] (The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices), the first serious scientific work on space travel. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation—the principle that governs rocket propulsion—is named in his honor (although it had been discovered previously).[22] He also advocated the use of liquid hydrogen and oxygen for propellant, calculating their maximum exhaust velocity. His work was essentially unknown outside the Soviet Union, but inside the country it inspired further research, experimentation and the formation of the Society for Studies of Interplanetary Travel in 1924.In 1912, Robert Esnault-Pelterie published a lecture[23] on rocket theory and interplanetary travel. He independently derived Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation, did basic calculations about the energy required to make round trips to the Moon and planets, and he proposed the use of atomic power (i.e. Radium) to power a jet drive.
In 1912 Robert Goddard began a serious analysis of rockets, concluding that conventional solid-fuel rockets needed to be improved in three ways. First, fuel should be burned in a small combustion chamber, instead of building the entire propellant container to withstand the high pressures. Second, rockets could be arranged in stages. And third, the exhaust speed (and thus the efficiency) could be greatly increased to beyond the speed of sound by using a De Laval nozzle. He patented these concepts in 1914.[24] He, also, independently developed the mathematics of rocket flight.
These people are working long before atomic fission became prevalent, and therefore could not count upon it as a source of energy. And they were still right.
AI is presently impossible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence#Problems
The Turing test is basically proof that we aren't there yet. As is, AI is totally reliant on an idea known as the singularity. This singularity is at present (and inevitably until its actual execution) utopian wishful thinking. We cannot predict the existence or timeframe of a paradigm shift.
So no. We are not "close" to star wars tech.
TJ, if you want to posit a hitherto unknown property of light then feel free. I will continue to work within the bounds of evidence and plausibility. And I will hope to Yahwe that you are right so I get a lightsaber of my own.
Originally posted by truejedi
...Kinda like time travel defied the KNOWN laws of physics 20 years ago, but now with wormholes, scientists are taking a serious look at the possibilites...
wormholes are only theoretical. i think the basis for quantum physical science is: if you can imagine it, it's possible or at least plausible.
since we have no evidence wormholes actually exist and if they do if they work how we foresee them, there's nothing to suggest time travel is even possible...but with quantum physics, you can pretty much imagine anything and theories an argument for it's existence
Originally posted by coolmovies
It will never happen we cant get cars to fly let alone have our own x wings
Never say never.
100 hundred years ago, people would consider today's world science fiction. With ever-increasing rates of technological progression we have today, it's almost impossible to predict what we will have, say, 500 hundred years into the future.
I think forever because star wars is like the generation for new jedis and sith lords.Also a person can choose to be on the republic side or the sith lord side and they can battle each other also you can buy fake lightsabers and attack each other with it and have a battle.So I say forever.......starwars